Joe, it's happened already. Read my original post on the pairs rule changes for this season. I am quite annoyed on behalf of the PetTikhs. After all, they are the ones who skated best at Worlds, by a country mile. Piseev should be politicking for them!.

Isn't it interesting that the rule giving so many extra points for Biellmanns came along when Irina was firmly back in the picture. The rule changes for Singles skating upgraded the point values for many of the skills Irina had always had, just in time for 2005 Worlds and the 2006 Olympics.

What changes took place just in time for 2005 Worlds or 2006 Olympics to favor Slutskaya? As far as I'm aware, nothing changed between the 2003-04 COP rules (which were in effect during a season when she was virtually absent) and 2004-05. She used the existing rules to her advantage, and some changes or clarifications were made afterward to make it harder for the same elements to score as high (or at all, in the case of her 2loop after the third 3loop in Moscow).

What changes took place just in time for 2005 Worlds or 2006 Olympics to favor Slutskaya? As far as I'm aware, nothing changed between the 2003-04 COP rules (which were in effect during a season when she was virtually absent) and 2004-05. She used the existing rules to her advantage, and some changes or clarifications were made afterward to make it harder for the same elements to score as high (or at all, in the case of her 2loop after the third 3loop in Moscow).

The rules surrounding the spiral sequence and spins were changed, going into detail as to what constituted a level 3 and level 4. Before that, level 3 was as high as you could go. The Biellmann of course, was given a level 4.

The rules surrounding the spiral sequence and spins were changed, going into detail as to what constituted a level 3 and level 4. Before that, level 3 was as high as you could go. The Biellmann of course, was given a level 4.

If I remember correctly -- I recycled the original GOE chart -- the value for the original level 3 was transferred to the new level 4, and new level 3 was added between the old level 2 and old level 3 scores. The rationale was that it was too difficult to get from level 2 to level 3, and the level 3's weren't being called.

Since they were called more for the skaters with reputation, this change actually helped the skaters without, because they could get new level 3, when the year before, they could never get beyond old level 2.

In addition, two rules were created for the 2006 season that would have resulted in downgrades for Slutskaya in 2005: as gkelly wrote above, in 2005-6, where there is a Zayak rule violation in combination, the entire combination receives 0 points, while in Moscow, Slutskaya's Zayak rule violation in the 3Lo/2Lo combination earned her points for the 2Lo; the second was that the Bielmann would not count in the upright spin unless a minimum number of revolutions had been performed in other positions.

It was suspeciouse that in old spec(and I might say the one had been modified from the initial/first CoP spec) has to put up Bielmman position explicitly for one critirial as to raise the level.

I'm not sure what you found suspicious.

2003-04http://www.isu.org/vsite/vfile/page/...-0-file,00.pdf
In the original definitions of levels, ISU communication 1224 (dated August 5, 2003), there were at that time three possible levels for all elements, and the Biellmann was listed under Layback spins as a feature for level 3 but not for level 2.

2004-05http://www.isu.org/vsite/vfile/page/...-0-file,00.pdf
Communication 1263, dated June 20, 2004, adds the increase of speed criterion for both levels 2 and 3, but Biellmann is still only listed for level 3 under laybacks. (Increase of speed is also mentioned as an example of a difficult variation for camel and sitspins but is not specifically listed under the level charts except for laybacks.)

Also, there is a clarification under the difficult spin variation examples that Biellmann is considered a variation of an upright, not a camel, spin. (I.e., going from another upright variation, such as layback, to a Biellmann position does not make the spin into a combination spin, unless of course there are other camel or sit variations included, but going from camel to Biellmann does make it a combination -- this is necessary for determining what kind of spin is being performed but doesn't by itself affect the levels.)

For spirals, several examples of difficult variations are given:

Twisting the upper body affecting the main body core and balance, bending or pulling the upper body towards the skating leg, moving
free leg from behind to the side of the body while maintaining free leg height, obtaining the Bielmann position.

For spins, the examples given are:

*sit spin (broken leg) – changing the weight distribution by bending the leg to the side or behind the main body core.
*camel spin with the upper body turned upwards app 180% (upside down position)
*camel spin – body arched where head and free foot are almost touching (doughnut spin)
*upright spin – where from the hips to the skating foot it is straight and the upper body is bent down towards to ice.

2005-06http://www.isu.org/vsite/vfile/page/...-0-file,00.pdf
Communication 1319, May 23, 2005, marks the introduction of four levels for singles/pairs elements. The assignment of levels is simplified by just listing the number of features required to achieve a certain level for a certain type of element, and separately listing the possible features. Thus the Biellmann becomes available as a layback feature for the new levels 2 and 3 in addition to level 4 (which is pretty much equivalent to old level 3).

Among many other clarifications and rule changes, there is a note that, for the ladies' short program required layback element:

The position of a “Biellmann Spin” can only be taken and considered as a feature to increase the Level after having successfully rotated these required 8 revolutions in the layback-position (backward or sideways).

Under the level definitions, the Biellmann listing notes

Bielmann position after 8 revolutions in layback spin (SP only)

In other words, in the ladies' short program only, the Biellmann will no longer count as a feature unless at least 8 revolutions of layback and/or sideways leaning have already been performed. In the long program or in combination spins, it just counts as a difficult variation same as any other difficult variation, with the same number of required revolutions in position as any other variation.

Remark: Bielmann [sic] positions counts as a feature that can increase the Level only in one spin in the Short Program and in two spins in Free Skating. While doing that, the first spin(s) is (are) taken into account.

Those are all the rule changes/clarifications about Biellmanns. Which of them is suspicious to you?

I think the main questionable rule changes are the timing of such changes. In the words of Oliver Stone, 'who benefits' from these changes, and how much practice was involved with certain skaters (Pairs) before these rules came into being?

It's definitely skepticism but then, so what? If one is brought up to accept the hierarchy, that is one thing; if one is brought up to question the hierarchy, that is another.

Those who have full faith and trust in the authority, have nothing to worry about. It's people like Stapleford who took the risk. The punishment is severe if you don't believe.

The year after the Olympics are the traditional time for major changes to be made in the gymnastics world. I think the limitations that were made at the beginning of the Olympic season, particularly in pairs, were the ones I'd cast doubt on. I think the ISU should have waited until the current season to ban the same jump used in combination and the limitations on lifts.

OK, "dumb o' SeaniBu," but is it possible that some of these decisions are made to prevent "unfair advantages" as seen by the said rule changers. As a way to keep things more evenly matched per say - closer events? I see some of the skepticism and how it can look like it is clearly giving someone else an advantage with timing of instigation, but could it be that is the intent not to give advantages but it happens that way in the outcome for unseen reasons? Or it might have lessened the advantage and we see only the outcome?